2024-05-29 11:01:40
The safety of healthcare professionals is at the heart of the news, especially given the increasing number of attacks in which they are victims. Therefore, the government proposed a few months ago national plan on this topic. Regarding the criminal aspect of the scheme, a bill aimed at enhancing the safety of health professionals was passed last March(1). As a recent Supreme Court decision demonstrates, this safety issue also concerns health facilities as employers (2).
Analysis by Alexandre Fievée, associate lawyer and Alice Robert, lawyer consultant at Derriennic Associés in La Veille Acteurs de Santé.
All healthcare institutions have a legal obligation to ensure the health and safety of their employees through the implementation of prevention, information and training actions (3). Violation of such provisions safety obligationsEspecially if an accident occurs at work, it can be costly to the employer. In fact, a health institution must Compensate health care professionals who have suffered harm.
when the supreme court intervenes
This was the case in the case before the Supreme Court. An emergency physician was violently physically assaulted by a patient who entered the outpatient area and threw himself at the emergency physician for not paying attention to her. She then allegedly grabbed her by the hair before knocking her to the ground and punching and kicking her. Fortunately, the care team stepped in to separate them.
It is against this background that the health institutions approached the courts: the emergency physicians claimed compensation for numerous damages, such as suffering, cosmetic damage and functional impairment, citing the employer’s “inexcusable fault”.
In its defence, the health agency claimed it could not predict or prevent aggressive behavior in patients. The emergency physician saw her request denied in the first-tier court, and finally won her case in the second-tier court (the Court of Appeal of Versailles). The health agency appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the second instance court, specifically stating that “ Employers cannot ignore the risk of assault on healthcare workers, including doctors “, within consideration” Violence increases in hospital emergency rooms […] Mentioned in 2015 ».
Institutions considered responsible
Furthermore, the judge found that the health agency failed to implement Adequate and effective protective measures to prevent this risk. Especially the dog safety contract was judged « by sofisan[t] » Violence management training institution receives ” Reaction size is too small ”. The judges also criticized the health agency for not placing security guards in place before the attack and failing to close the department related to the sliding doors – regardless of whether those factors would have actually prevented the attack.
Therefore, the health agency was ordered to bear the amount of damages actually incurred by the emergency physician.
In addition to current events, this court ruling also invites health facilities that employ health professionals to Be extra vigilant about safety precautions the latter. A audit Therefore, it is critical to develop safety policies that are specific to each health facility…
notes
(1) Adopted on first reading on March 14, 2024.
(2) KASS. citizen. 2, February 29, 2024, n°22-18868 Confirmed by CA Versailles, June 16, 2022, n°21-02680.
(3) Articles L.4121-1 to L.4121-5 of the Labor Code.
Read previous analysis Authors: Alexander Faye and Alice Robert
1722410920
#Attacks #Healthcare #Professionals #Responsibilities #Employing #Healthcare #Facilities #analyze
